Thursday, 5 June 2014

Scandal brings change. Scandal was the
catalyst for the introduction of the Register of Members Interests. Scandal was
responsible for the Code of Conduct that now, albeit insufficiently, guides
parliamentary behaviour. Scandal tightens the rules and forces an increase in transparency.
In times of scandal, parliament is vulnerable, and when scandal takes place
near election time, then it can often prompt promises that would otherwise not
be made.

When the expenses scandal broke, the 2010 election was just around the corner.
Faced with a huge public backlash, all three parties promised to introduce a
policy that would allow for constituents to carry out a petition to recall
their MP from office if they were found to have carried out any ‘serious
wrongdoing’. The Conservative manifesto, said if such behaviour
took place, then it would act as a trigger that will allow a petition to be
raised, and if that petition was signed by at least 10% of the electorate, then
this would kick-start a by-election. No longer would
the voting public have to rely on an MP having enough dignity to resign from
their position or for the local party to de-select them. The Recall policy,
which also entered the coalition agreement, would increase the power
of the electorate, act as a genuine threat to any MP thinking of acting
like a Patrick Mercer and go some way to restoring trust in a parliament often
seen as a detriment to democracy.

The UK government is playing catch up, but they are reluctant to even do that.

A White Paper on Recall was put forward,
which was roundly condemned by the select committee on Political and
Constitutional Reform, as being so restricted, that under the government
proposals, “constituents themselves would not be able to initiate a recall
petition.” This intentionally “weakened effort” they said, would do nothing to
“increase public confidence in politics…and could even reduce confidence by
creating expectations that are not fulfilled.” Furthermore, they felt there was no “gap in
the disciplinary procedures” that needed filling by the introduction of Recall.
Rather, they suggested the power to expel Members who
are guilty of serious wrongdoing should be used, which as we know has only
taken place in three times in the last century.This they concluded “should be regarded as an active option;
rather than a theoretical possibility.”

This too however, would leave the sanction
to be imposed on MPs in their own hands.

Part of the problem was their ability to
agree on the ambiguous definition of ‘serious wrongdoing’ and what would amount
to a trigger for a by-election. A YouGov survey carried out last year asked the
public what behaviour they thought should act as a trigger. After all, if this
policy was about empowering the electorate, then presumably they would want a
say. The survey provided eleven options ranging from ‘a crime serious enough to
receive a prison sentence’, ‘taking bribes’, or ‘lying in Parliament.’

The Parliamentary Commissioner for
Standards, John Lyon, felt that the best guide to go by would be if anybody
breached the code of conduct. However, there is clearly a difference between
somebody forgetting to declare an interest in a debate, compared to somebody
offering access to policy in exchange for money. One of the other suggested
‘triggers’ for Recall would be if an MP was given a custodial sentence of
twelve months or less. Professor Anne Twomey is an expert in constitutional law
based in Australia with extensive knowledge of Recall systems in other
countries. She suggests the ‘primary types of actions for which voters would
like the opportunity to recall Members are those that involve the misuse or
abuse of a Member's position and do not usually involve prison terms—such as
breaches of entitlements, acts of dishonesty, misuse of parliamentary
privilege, nepotism, making decisions that favour family members or business
associates, and the like.’

The promise of Recall, made in the face
of rising public anger at the widespread abuse of the expenses system, was
first weakened, and then dropped, which led to a blame game within the
coalition as to where the blame lay. The failure of the Conservative party to
keep to their election promise greatly angered one their own MPs, Zac
Goldsmith, who had pushed for the policy to be realised and created his own version of the
Bill. “Parties can stuff their manifestos full of clever promises” he said, “but
if voters don't believe them, they may as well present blank sheets…How is it
possible that our leaders still don't understand that the single biggest cause
of people's hatred of them is deceit?”

Then up stepped the Queen to announce the
government would indeed introduce a Recall bill would be created but the power
remains in the hands of MPs who will effectively be able to veto a move for
recall.

The hammer blow for democracy, transparency
and localism amounts to the equivalent of government laughing in the face of
the electorate. When their hands were caught in the taxpayer’s pockets, for
flipping mortgages, redecorating, getting media training, hanging baskets, dog
food, duck ponds, bath mats, gardening, you name it, then they were only too
quick to apologise and promise Recall.

Nobody was saying introducing a Recall bill
was simple, but to leave it in the hands of the very same people who created
the scandal that required the bill is to laugh in the face of the public and
make a mockery of their apology to the public over their excessive and
sometimes criminal pilfering of public money.